Long story short, I have a few AR lowers that were DROS'd as "long guns" since the state refuses to DROS any stripped receiver as a pistol or frame, even though those are options. I understand why it cannot be DROS'd as a pistol since it doesn't comply with the pistol requirements. However, it can, and should be sold as a frame. The 4473 has these marked as "other" and not as a long gun since they are just that, an "other".

My question... Does anyone know of case law supporting or against building an AR pistol from a stripped receiver that was DROS'd as a "long gun"?

It looks like the state is getting away this crap because of this:

16865. As used in Section 26860, "long gun" means any firearm that
is not a handgun or a machine-gun.

Obviously it's not a handgun or machine-gun, since it's just a receiver. So under law, it's automatically classified as a "long gun". Any because it's now a "long gun" all SBR laws would apply to it.

I dont think there is case law yet. But you also need to comply with all the handgun roster laws. A combination of all these laws is what's preventing a clear path to lawfully do what you propose. Only case law would settle this with certainty.

Federally you can build a stripped lower into a pistol provided the lower has never been barreled as a long gun.

CA, as stated as above, there's no case law but since the lower was DROS'd as a long gun they have a very simple argument that you illegally manufactured a pistol from a long gun. Search the forms many people have claimed to have done this exact thing along with submitting a vol reg. I'm sure those people are perfectly fine until they/the gun gets into trouble and an overly excited DA starts researching the history and source of the gun. It could be many many hands and years later that something happens but that could back to bite these people.

A few manufactures had factory built single shot AR pistols (SSE 2.0) for sale as new mid last year. I know the DOJ said the Franklin Armory ones were not allowed to be DROS'd and Franklin was suing. I don't know about the others or the current status.http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...t-1096655.html

Not true. Federally a stripped lower is classified as "other" and therefore is neither pistol or long gun. As such it can be built up either way but once a long forever and ever it's a long gun.

Quote:

Please cite your sources and, since you are claiming that it is "law", please cite the law you are refering to.

I said nothing about the DROS issue, 4473, and "other" box. I did not address that because he did not ask.

Here is OP's question

Quote:

Originally Posted by locosway -Yeah, I'm just trying to find a way to build one of my lowers as a pistol.

I even quoted the question and answered it directly. He cannot build a rifle lower into a pistol lower. The ATF has said it's illegal to make a rifle lower into a pistol. It's illegal and he cannot do it with the correct state and federal paperwork. Maybe "it is the law" is not the correct semantics. The executive branch of government has the ability to design regulatory schemes under which a law is enforced. The courts do have the final say, but the ATF will arrest and prosecute you under their interpretation of the law, not yours. So yes, ATF's reading of the law may not be constitutional, valid, or too vague, but for all intents and purposes, the ATF will enforce the way they read the law.

In January 2015 so dip**** committing a burglary put a pistol brace onto a rifle lower and got caught. He was charged with violating SBR laws. California's broad SBR laws most certainly me they will be prosecuted. Here is the CA penal code:

Quote:

16530. (a) As used in this part, the terms "firearm capable of
being concealed upon the person," "pistol," and "revolver" apply to
and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is
expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form
of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
These terms also include any device that has a barrel 16 inches or
more in length which is designed to be interchanged with a barrel
less than 16 inches in length.
(b) Nothing shall prevent a device defined as a "firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person," "pistol," or "revolver" from
also being found to be a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled
shotgun.

and again here:

Quote:

16640. (a) As used in this part, "handgun" means any pistol,
revolver, or firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(b) Nothing shall prevent a device defined as a "handgun" from
also being found to be a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled
shotgun.

California's SBR law allows for a lower DROS'd as a long gun to be considered a pistol. So I will let you explain to the judge why it's legal to configure a rifle lower as a pistol because nothing in the penal code said you can't.

Lets say somebody has a bunch of stripped lowers which they purchased before the long gun registration started. They build one of those lowers as a pistol and sell it to an unsuspecting buying as a PPT.

Would the transfer go through and the gun be registered as a pistol? The lower wouldn't have previously been in the database, right? As DJFLASH commented, there are probably cases where this has happened and there may be people out there who think they legitimately own AR pistols they bought from sellers who originally DROSed them as long guns.

I said nothing about the DROS issue, 4473, and "other" box. I did not address that because he did not ask.

Here is OP's question

I even quoted the question and answered it directly. He cannot build a rifle lower into a pistol lower. The ATF has said it's illegal to make a rifle lower into a pistol. It's illegal and he cannot do it with the correct state and federal paperwork. Maybe "it is the law" is not the correct semantics. The executive branch of government has the ability to design regulatory schemes under which a law is enforced. The courts do have the final say, but the ATF will arrest and prosecute you under their interpretation of the law, not yours. So yes, ATF's reading of the law may not be constitutional, valid, or too vague, but for all intents and purposes, the ATF will enforce the way they read the law.

In January 2015 so dip**** committing a burglary put a pistol brace onto a rifle lower and got caught. He was charged with violating SBR laws. California's broad SBR laws most certainly me they will be prosecuted. Here is the CA penal code:

and again here:

California's SBR law allows for a lower DROS'd as a long gun to be considered a pistol. So I will let you explain to the judge why it's legal to configure a rifle lower as a pistol because nothing in the penal code said you can't.

Please show me the law or explain why you think that DROSing something which it does not fit the legal definition of makes it legally something that it isn't. Does how something is DROSed really mean more than what it legally is? A virgin receiver does not fit CA's legal definition of "rifle" so, how can it legally be a "rifle"?

BTW, ATF has opined several times in writing that a virgin receiver DROSed in Ca as a long gun or rifle can be built into a handgun (assuming that it has never been assembled as a "rifle") without violating any Federal law.

Owner has a stripped virgin lower DROSsed prior to long gun registration (no serial numbers or descriptions ever submitted to CADOJ). At the time I believe DOJ was prohibited from retaining any record of the transaction longer than two weeks. ATF OK with building this into a pistol. Owner takes the virgin lower over the border into Nevada, builds it as a compliant single-shot/bolt-action/break-open/whatever pistol, returns to CA and (optionally) VOLREGs it as a pistol.

Where did he violate any law?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffyhog

Lets say somebody has a bunch of stripped lowers which they purchased before the long gun registration started. They build one of those lowers as a pistol and sell it to an unsuspecting buying as a PPT.

Would the transfer go through and the gun be registered as a pistol? The lower wouldn't have previously been in the database, right? As DJFLASH commented, there are probably cases where this has happened and there may be people out there who think they legitimately own AR pistols they bought from sellers who originally DROSed them as long guns.

When the FLL DROS's you the lower he HAS/HAD to choose rifle or pistol. "Other" only exists on the federal form.

Take these receivers out of CA and you can assemble them as pistols. In CA, they are already long guns.

Arguing semantics with regard to converting a long gun into a pistol is just silly. Nobody in this thread is on the verge of some legal breakthrough here.

How are they "already long guns"? Can you show me where CA DROS legally makes them what they do not fit CA's legal definition of? The bottom line is that no one knows for sure one way or the other and won't know until case law is made.

Also, wireless claimed that it is illegal per ATF (Federal). So, some of us are showing him the error of his ways.

How are they "already long guns"? Can you show me where CA DROS legally makes them what they do not fit CA's legal definition of? The bottom line is that no one knows for sure one way or the other and won't know until case law is made.

Well for starters, my DROS forms before 2014 say "Longgun" and they now say "Rifle"

Well for starters, my DROS forms before 2014 say "Longgun" and they now say "Rifle"

It does not say "Multi-use receiver" or "you choose and let us know"

Is that not clear enough?

So what? So the DROS form doesn't have the correct choice. How does that affect anything? Are you trying to say that CA's DROS system somehow is capable of legally making a virgin receiver into a "rifle" although it doesn't fit CA's own legal definition of "rifle"? If I incorrectly transfer and register a motorcycle as a 1/2 ton pick up, is it now legally considered a 1/2 ton truck? Or, do I still need a motorcycle endorsement on my license to drive it on public roadways?

So what? So the DROS form doesn't have the correct choice. How does that affect anything? Are you trying to say that CA's DROS system somehow is capable of legally making a virgin receiver into a "rifle" although it doesn't fit CA's own legal definition of "rifle"? If I incorrectly transfer and register a motorcycle as a 1/2 ton pick up, is it now legally considered a 1/2 ton truck? Or, do I still need a motorcycle endorsement on my license to drive it on public roadways?

atf has ruled DROS does not change the classification of a firearm.. nothing can.. it is only what it is per their definitions.

let me be clear - No matter what the DROS says... a receiver is only a receiver until it is built in the eyes of the ATF. whatever it is built as, will be what it is for the remainder of the guns existence.

if built into a pistol, the gun will always be a pistol, - however, it can be in a temporary rifle configuration and be converted back to pistol configuration.

if built into a rifle, it will always be a rifle and can never be converted into a pistol

if left as a receiver, and in CA dressed as a long gun, it is still a receiver in the eyes of the ATF and can be built into a pistol in a different state.

if the receiver is built into a long gun, and drosd as a long gun, it can never be a pistol in any state!

So what? So the DROS form doesn't have the correct choice. How does that affect anything? Are you trying to say that CA's DROS system somehow is capable of legally making a virgin receiver into a "rifle" although it doesn't fit CA's own legal definition of "rifle"? If I incorrectly transfer and register a motorcycle as a 1/2 ton pick up, is it now legally considered a 1/2 ton truck? Or, do I still need a motorcycle endorsement on my license to drive it on public roadways?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER

How are they "already long guns"? Can you show me where CA DROS legally makes them what they do not fit CA's legal definition of? The bottom line is that no one knows for sure one way or the other and won't know until case law is made.

Also, wireless claimed that it is illegal per ATF (Federal). So, some of us are showing him the error of his ways.

CSACANNONEER: While I agree with you that it doesn't fit the legal definition I think everyone is arguing over semantics here. Federally perfectly legal. CA not specifically illegal but having it DROS'd as a long gun/rifle sure gives CA a huge stick to beat you over the head with if they chose to. A DROS from the position of CA DOJ is a factual record of the firearm transaction including person, address, DL, firearm make, model and type. To me that's a HUGE up hill battle against the DOJ to fight them off if they were to make a stink about it.

I think we all need to be careful. All it takes is one gangbanger to make an AR pistol and commit a crime with it and the DA makes an example out of them or the person before them that made the pistol and there's the case law.

atf has ruled DROS does not change the classification of a firearm.. nothing can.. it is only what it is per their definitions.

let me be clear - No matter what the DROS says... a receiver is only a receiver until it is built in the eyes of the ATF. whatever it is built as, will be what it is for the remainder of the guns existence.

if built into a pistol, the gun will always be a pistol, - however, it can be in a temporary rifle configuration and be converted back to pistol configuration.

if built into a rifle, it will always be a rifle and can never be converted into a pistol

if left as a receiver, and in CA dressed as a long gun, it is still a receiver in the eyes of the ATF and can be built into a pistol in a different state.

if the receiver is built into a long gun, and drosd as a long gun, it can never be a pistol in any state!

get it?

Have I ever said anything to contradict any of those statements?

Quote:

Originally Posted by djflash

CSACANNONEER: While I agree with you that it doesn't fit the legal definition I think everyone is arguing over semantics here. Federally perfectly legal. CA not specifically illegal but having it DROS'd as a long gun/rifle sure gives CA a huge stick to beat you over the head with if they chose to. A DROS from the position of CA DOJ is a factual record of the firearm transaction including person, address, DL, firearm make, model and type. To me that's a HUGE up hill battle against the DOJ to fight them off if they were to make a stink about it.

I think we all need to be careful. All it takes is one gangbanger to make an AR pistol and commit a crime with it and the DA makes an example out of them or the person before them that made the pistol and there's the case law.

Yup, while I don't think it is "illegal", I also don't advise anyone to do it without consulting a lawyer and assessing the risk vs. rewards. For now, it's simply not worth it. There are far less risky ways of legally getting an AR pistol in CA.

Yup, while I don't think it is "illegal", I also don't advise anyone to do it without consulting a lawyer and assessing the risk vs. rewards. For now, it's simply not worth it. There are far less risky ways of legally getting an AR pistol in CA.

This is a cop out on your part. You are so adamant in your position and challenge everyone to prove you are wrong yet you are unwilling to prove that you are right.

What I have read on this subject, despite the legal definitions is, the boys and girls in blue are afraid of a .223/556 handgun that "penetrates" their vests and the concealability. Yet, what is the difference between a handgun in .223 or a rifle? Or at that any rifle caliber would penetrate the vests in a normal issue vest to law enforcement. Can you conceal an AR15 rifle? Sure you can. The AR15 is light, and can with a 16" barrel is concealable; quite easily.

Which bring me now to the various laws. Sounds like there is an equal protection issue when it comes to not allowing an AR15 "pistol" but allowing and AR15 Rifle both being in .223/556.

Venue wise, California wouldn't be a good place to litigate this, because of the general nature of the courts though.

CSACANNONEER: While I agree with you that it doesn't fit the legal definition I think everyone is arguing over semantics here. Federally perfectly legal. CA not specifically illegal but having it DROS'd as a long gun/rifle sure gives CA a huge stick to beat you over the head with if they chose to. A DROS from the position of CA DOJ is a factual record of the firearm transaction including person, address, DL, firearm make, model and type. To me that's a HUGE up hill battle against the DOJ to fight them off if they were to make a stink about it.

arguing over semantics is the idea here. semantics created the entire OLL movement. semantics brought about the Bullet Button and other magazine locks. semantics brought about 2+ years of SSE. arguing about semantics has exposed other weaknesses in the written PC for our gain.

Quote:

I think we all need to be careful. All it takes is one gangbanger to make an AR pistol and commit a crime with it and the DA makes an example out of them or the person before them that made the pistol and there's the case law.

This is a cop out on your part. You are so adamant in your position and challenge everyone to prove you are wrong yet you are unwilling to prove that you are right.

So what was the purpose of this exercise?

What was the purpose of the first members here discussing the legalities of importing off list AR lowers into Ca in 2004? Or, the purpose of members here discussing the legality of magazine locks which release magazines with the use of a tool?

I am not unwilling to prove that I'm correct. I just don't have any need to and I don't think the risk and costs of possible prosecution (even if found innocent) is worth it for me. I own a mill. However, anyone who says that it is illegal should be able to prove their case since, laws generally don't regulate what is legal just what is illegal.

The problem is this is not some new discussion or some new idea. It's been hashed out long before 80s, SSE1 and SSE2. Was their a new development besides posts like these from second responders that reopened the door for this re-hashing?

I've always thought what if you built a "long gun" from a new receiver. 16 inch barrel and pistol buffer tube. Not a rifle (no stock) so no bullet button needed, you can use pistol grip as normal and keep your magazines detachable. Not a pistol (16 inch barrel) so no worries there. I've thrown this out there a few times but nobody wants to try it. Others have built AR type long guns using spade grips and kept mag release detachable because it wasn't a rifle. They had pistol grips too. Thought this seemed like a neat idea.

I've always thought what if you built a "long gun" from a new receiver. 16 inch barrel and pistol buffer tube. Not a rifle (no stock) so no bullet button needed, you can use pistol grip as normal and keep your magazines detachable. Not a pistol (16 inch barrel) so no worries there. I've thrown this out there a few times but nobody wants to try it. Others have built AR type long guns using spade grips and kept mag release detachable because it wasn't a rifle. They had pistol grips too. Thought this seemed like a neat idea.

well this is what we do know

all ar pistols need BB due to the magweel being outside the pistol grip

all rifles need a BB if it has either a telescoping stock, a pistol grip, or a flash hider

while putting a 16" barrel on a pistol lower is legal, u are utilizing your pistol on long gun configuration which would make you applicable to all long gun laws...

no matter what you need a BB unless you go featureless rifle

your contending because it doesn't have a stock it is not a rifle since it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder... good luck making your case to a judge who has no idea what your talking about.. let alone 6 jurors...

but i see what you are saying... my 1919 has a pistol grip with no stock.. yet it doesn't have a bullet button...

all ar pistols need BB due to the magweel being outside the pistol grip

all rifles need a BB if it has either a telescoping stock, a pistol grip, or a flash hider

while putting a 16" barrel on a pistol lower is legal, u are utilizing your pistol on long gun configuration which would make you applicable to all long gun laws...

no matter what you need a BB unless you go featureless rifle

your contending because it doesn't have a stock it is not a rifle since it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder... good luck making your case to a judge who has no idea what your talking about.. let alone 6 jurors...

but i see what you are saying... my 1919 has a pistol grip with no stock.. yet it doesn't have a bullet button...

CA doesn't really have any "long gun laws" though. They have assault weapon bans against certain rifles, pistols, and shotguns, but nothing for generic long guns. Go look for yourself, you're not going to find anything.

On the original question, my biggest concern is the wording of CA's SBR law if the lower were possibly considered to at some point be a rifle. .

Quote:

Originally Posted by CA PC 17170

17170. As used in this part, "short-barreled rifle" means any of
the following:
(a) A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in
length.
(b) A rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches.(c) Any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration,
modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as modified, has an
overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less
than 16 inches in length.
(d) Any device that may be readily restored to fire a fixed
cartridge which, when so restored, is a device defined in
subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive.
(e) Any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended to
convert a device into a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c),
inclusive, or any combination of parts from which a device defined in
subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, may be readily assembled if
those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same
person.

__________________
"if you had friends, you wouldn't need to play computer games" - Sid Meier on original Civilization being single player only

CA doesn't really have any "long gun laws" though. They have assault weapon bans against certain rifles, pistols, and shotguns, but nothing for generic long guns. Go look for yourself, you're not going to find anything.

On the original question, my biggest concern is the wording of CA's SBR law if the lower were possibly considered to at some point be a rifle. .

the issue with the SBR laws is that its a weapon made from a rifle

according to the ATF, once a pistol, always a pistol.

however, a pistol can be made into a rifle configuration but it is still a pistol.

all ar pistols need BB due to the magweel being outside the pistol grip

all rifles need a BB if it has either a telescoping stock, a pistol grip, or a flash hider

while putting a 16" barrel on a pistol lower is legal, u are utilizing your pistol on long gun configuration which would make you applicable to all long gun laws...

no matter what you need a BB unless you go featureless rifle

your contending because it doesn't have a stock it is not a rifle since it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder... good luck making your case to a judge who has no idea what your talking about.. let alone 6 jurors...

but i see what you are saying... my 1919 has a pistol grip with no stock.. yet it doesn't have a bullet button...

You missed my point. It's not made from a pistol lower. It's a standard unbuilt receiver drosed as a "long gun". Build it with 16 inch barrel and no stock. Just a buffer tube.
This is not a rifle so it's not covered in the assault weapon definition so no bullet button is needed. It is not a pistol so the mag being outside the grip is not applicable to needing a bullet button. It is legally covered the same way your 1919 is legally speaking. If you are up to defending your 1919 why not this? Just because nobody has tried it doesn't mean that it isn't legal. All of these "Off List" rifles are here because of people reading the law and doing what was at first thought of as crazy, and do so at your own risk, but now it is mainstream.
I'm just asking those smarter than I if this is legal or not and putting it out there for people to discuss.

__________________
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." -Han Solo